From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
Date: | 2017-02-15 17:48:26 |
Message-ID: | 17869.1487180906@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... Maybe that difference matters to the memory prefetching
> controller, I dunno, but it seems funny that we did the PGXACT work to
> reduce the number of cache lines that had to be touched in order to
> take a snapshot to improve performance, and now we're talking about
> increasing it again, also to improve performance.
Yes. I was skeptical that the original change was adequately proven
to be a good idea, and I'm even more skeptical this time. I think
every single number that's been reported about this is completely
machine-specific, and likely workload-specific too, and should not
be taken as a reason to do anything.
My druthers at this point would be to revert the separation on code
cleanliness grounds and call it a day, more or less independently of any
claims about performance. I'd be willing to talk about padding PGPROC
to some reasonable stride, but I remain dubious that any changes of
that sort would have a half-life worth complicating the code for.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-02-15 17:49:07 | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-15 17:30:46 | Re: Sum aggregate calculation for single precsion real |